Boundary Commission

The Boundary Commission hosted an event today in Bristol to cover the Parliamentary Boundary issues and any counter proposals. During this event it because very clear that the Gloucester MP had not actually read the bill and done any impact analysis, or understood the rules he was voting for. If he has he would have realised this problem was going to come up and would have perhaps moved an amendment at the early stage, but no, he did what he does best, and that is exactly what he was told to do by “Big Dave”.

It is now that he is proposing to split Westgate ward, keeping the main buildings (Cathedral, Docks etc.) and losing Hempstead, Alderny Island etc. to the Forest of Dean. This is such a ridiculous suggestion on a number of levels. Firstly, when he voted the bill through, he voted for the minimum change and certainly splitting of electoral wards was a huge no no. This is for good reasons, firstly to split wards and the admin that goes with it is very costly. But, and this is where we get to the absurdity of the proposal, they want to split Westgate for the Parliamentary, but not for City or County. So you would not have a properly split ward, just the Parliamentary line running through it. Imagine the hassle and organisation it will take to organise any sort of local and national election.

It was clear through the agitated actions and aggressive questioning by our MP that the full realisation of his proposals have hit home, that he is pushing to set a national precedent that just cannot be implemented because it would undermine the whole workings of the Boundary Commission. It was also a bit strange that he seemed more concerned about the Tewkesbury Abbey ward moving to the Forest of Dean rather than the those residents in the Westgate Ward that he is trying to cut out.

And what of the Lib Dem proposals? It seems to be a case of they are doing what the Tories tell them, their submission is exactly the same, breaking the same rules and ignoring the same people. Parmjit Dhanda made the very good point that they seem to have forgotten that it should be about the communities involved, not just buildings!

So what is the Labour solution? Ideally, there would be no change as we are not losing any MPs in Gloucestershire they are merely playing a numbers exercise. However in coming up with an alternative and if we had to swallow a bitter pill, the best we could come up with, which keeps in with all the rules is to highlight Hucclecote instead. Ironically, this should be supported by the Tories because it is the suggestion that both Paul James and Mark Hawthorne made at the last boundary review. The reality is though that I think even this is unnecessary in Gloucestershire, we will end up with the same number of MPs, so we should focus on communitites not numbers!

As an update, straight from the rule book, here is the research the Tories and Lib Dems have not done, and why their proposal should fail.

The Labour Party have done their research and have shown that it can be done without splitting wards, and therefore it is not appropriate to go down the silly dead end of splitting Westgate.

The issue of the Parliamentary Boundaries is becoming very emotive, especially in Gloucester where it is suggested we lose the Westgate ward to the forest of Dean. How ironic that when it came to voting this change through and its terms and conditions, the Gloucester MP was more than happy, but now he is desperate to make people believe that it has nothing to do with him and he is very against it. Ironically he has just put a counter proposal forward which doesn’t really fit with the remit he voted for in the first place.

The Boundary Commission were told to look at reducing the number of MPs and to balance the elector numbers with minimal change and fuss. To keep costs down they were asked to not split wards unless absolutely necessary and this is why we have the suggestion of moving a single ward, Westgate, to the Forest of Dean to make a simple change. To be fair to the Commission, they have done their job exceptionally well, within the bounds that Mr Graham voted for.

However, this is where it falls down. Because they were told to concentrate on the numbers by the Tories, they did not give other factors such as geolocation as much, if any, weight in their decision. While it may not play nice with the numbers, Westgate holds most of the “Crown Jewels” of the city and should not be moved. If the Tories had set the remit properly to begin with, we would not have this silly situation. However it is also a bit rich for the MP to be organising campaigns against the change when he voted for it in the first place. It is also even more rich that in his submission he suggests splitting the Westgate ward, a move that he told the Boundary Commission they should not do.

Ironically, he is getting no support from his neighbouring MPs either, they are keen that his desperate manoeuvres don’t mess up their wards. A cynic would say that this is all about Mr Graham not having to move his office, especially when it took him so long to get it established in the first place. But I’m not a cynic.

No doubt the Lib Dems will also put forward their suggestion, and if their County Boundary efforts were anything to go by, they won’t be able to agree and there will be a couple of submissions. I wonder what crazy schemes they will come up with, which of course will have nothing to do with where their voter base is.

There is a mass protest this Friday about the move, starting at the Cross in Gloucester at 12.30h. If you go, don’t forget to point out that it is because of the Tories that we are in the position we are in!

I wrote a few weeks ago about the reduction in County councillors in Gloucestershire. The Conservative idea that all 2 member wards should be reduced to 1 member.

Well, it seems the Boundary Commission has agreed to the Tory demands and reduce the number of councillors by TEN!

Mark Hawthorne, County Council Leader, said “I am pleased the Commission has agreed with Conservative arguments to cut the number of councillors. I could not look our staff who are facing redundancy in the face if councillors weren’t sharing the pain too.”

That just proves to me that he just doesn’t get democracy! Its not the councillors themselves who will feel the pain of this, its the constituents they represent, and the fact they will not be able to get as much time with their elected representative, if at all! Having pointed out in my last post that it would mean looking after 16000 people, I did think that it may not make much difference as I have never seen Vic Rice since he was elected, Jackie Hall seems to cover the patch.

This move will save the Tax Payer £88k. But what will it cost the tax payer in terms of accountability and scrutiny?

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Jeremy Hilton when he says “I’m worried about the community work and the scrutiny of policies and challenging the cabinet in the way they administer the county council services. It might be difficult for that to happen effectively with reduced numbers.”

I think he is right – I think this is a bad move – What price democracy?